Source: AP

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba (AP) - The commander of the Guantanamo Bay detention center said Saturday he has been researching new potential accommodations for Osama bin Laden's driver, who could be held here indefinitely regardless of the verdict at his war crimes trial.

A jury of American military officers is expected to begin deliberations
Monday in the case of Salim Hamdan, a Yemeni who faces a maximum life sentence on charges of conspiracy and supporting terrorism.

Even if he is found innocent, he may not leave this U.S. Navy base. The military retains the right to hold those considered to pose a threat to the United States _ even those who have been cleared of charges at Guantanamo's «military commissions.


. . .

Military prosecutors have accused Hamdan of transporting weapons for al-Qaida, swearing an oath of loyalty to bin Laden and helping him escape U.S. retribution following the Sept. 11 attacks by driving him around Afghanistan. Defense lawyers say he was a low-level bin Laden employee who stayed with him for the US$200-a-month salary.

The alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, said in written testimony Friday that Hamdan was too «primitive» and uneducated to be involved in al-Qaida's terrorist plots. «He was not a soldier, he was a driver,» Mohammed said.

Read more: http://www.pr-inside.com/bin-laden-driver-could-stay-indefinitely-r735459.htm

Either that, or they've created a lot of monsters, or future insurgents, at Gitmo. That wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

Why bother having trials? If they aren't pissed off enough before the trial, once they are found not-guilty and still kept imprisoned, you can be sure that prisoner will not look upon America favorably.

There are at least three guys waiting to be re-patriated and State will not help get it done.

There will be more, too, between now and January and bet me that State will continue to fillibuster.

They do not want these people to go home until Bush is out of office.

They refer to "if he is found innocent"/

I'm not familiar with these types of trials, but if they are anything like criminal trials, people are NOT found innocent.

They are found not guilty.

A person who is found not guilty MAY BE innocent.

heck, a person who is found guilty may be actually innocent, (even though he is de jure guilty of course).

But this is at least the 2nd post I have read that refers to courts finding people INNOCENT.

Unless these military trials can find people innocent, the language here is misleading



,

So, if found not to be guilty, innocence is retained throughout. We don't oft word it that way is all.

It would be nice if we had a way for people to be pronounced innocent after having been found guilty. Then your concern with shorthand speech would be needfully addressed.

Innocence is a PRESUMPTION. It is not a determination.

Courts make a DETERMINATION, a VERDICT (look up the roots) that a person is guilty or not guilty.

They do NOT make a verdict that a person is innocent.

A Presumption is not the same as a determination.

Here's an example...

A person in the state of WA with a blood alcohol concentration below .08 is PRESUMED NOT to be impaired.

It does not follow that a determination has been made that they are not impaired. And in fact, in some cases, they can be found impaired (by etoh) with a .07.

Please understand there is a huge difference between a presumption and a determination.

I don't want to get all semantical and stuff, but it's a robust distinction

His innocence changes from a presumption to a determination when a verdict returns not guilty.

True, the verdict does not return the word innocent, but this is not the fault of the charged. It is the fault of the system's wording in attempt to answer the charge(the act) rather than the charged(the person). The person's innocence goes from presumed to determined as the verdict is read.

I hope that answers your analogy as well.

Let us remember that English is a fine language with which to speak with horses.

you can keep repeating a falsehood all you want, but it doesn't change the reality of how our court systems and the law works.

ask any person who actually understands the law. clearly, no offense... you don't

note also that even if found civilly responsible for an offense, that does not affect this presumption vs. determination thing. which again, supports the truth

it's a common layman's error. I see media (the MSM) do it all the time.

You will NOT see a legal journal say "the courts declared (or determined) Johnson to be innocent " based merely on a not guilty verdict.

you can be found not guilty even if it's clear you DID it btw (excluded evidence).

Again, not guilty is a legal determination.

Innocent is a DIFFERENT determination, and it's one that JURIES are not AUTHORIZED to make.


that's the law. learn it.

Where can he make that kind of money in Afghanistan/Pakistan or the country of his origin ?

Is he from Q8 ?



I know they have been given ex Gitmo detainee's upon which they were released with "tragic" results after venturing up to Mosul Iraq (according to their ex defense lawyer when quoted in the media )

I'm sure this guy wouldn't do anything that radical.

I mean we label these people as trrrsts, horrible killers who are a threat to the world. Oh and if one happens to be innocent and brought there by mistake, would our great leaders take the side of compassion? No, you're a Muslim looking person, I cant understand what you say so you are by default guilty and sentenced to life or maybe death or hell what about naked body stacks.

Iraq abuse claims:

British troops 'made Muslim commander hear porn videos'

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/02/military.iraq

But the argument will be, "Isn't it surprising after being held they turn around and blow themselves up ......around civilians in a market place or some other social event" !

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/mine-blast-kills-10-of-afghan-wedding-party_10079235.html

but since the source isn't the flavor most prefer, guess it is best to ignore it and say the Afghans were better off under "the old boss".

http://www.rawa.org/murder-w.htm

We are a criminal nation.

I can't believe this didn't get five recs.

then they came for us."